Concerning the effect of interruption of civil statute of limitations on criminal proceedings where the right holder fails to report a case

[Rule of Law]

The issue of the case is concerning the effect of interruption of civil statue of limitations on criminal proceedings where a person other than the right holder reports a case. The judicial interpretation clearly provides for the issue concerning the interruption of civil statute of limitations in criminal proceedings where a right holder reports a case and such provision obviously cannot apply to this case directly. Although the decision in the first instance showed a correct conclusion, neither analysis is made, nor any legal ground is provided. Through an analysis of the purpose of statute of limitations and the purpose of setting interruption and other obstacles, and in light of facts found by the public security organ in coordination with the right holder to the case, and determination of infringement relying on the effective judgment of criminal action and other factors, the court held that the request by the public security organ of identification of good of alleged infringement may give rise to two legal consequences. One is that the statute of limitations commences from the date when the right holder knows the existence of infringement; the other is that due to the existence of criminal prosecution procedures, the right holder has reasonable grounds to confide that the involvement of public power can protect its rights, and the interruption of statute of limitations starts accordingly. Therefore, the case can be identified to be “any other matter which has the same effect of interruption of statute of limitations as bringing a lawsuit has”, so any civil tort action lodged by the appellee within two years from the decision of the criminal case does not exceed the statue of limitations.